SCIENTIFI
C
CONTR
0
I
BUTION
GARY
J.
PATRONEK,
VMD
PHD
Hoarding
of
Animals:
An
Under-Recognized
Public
Health
Problem
in
a
Difficult-
to-Study
Population
Dr.
Patronek
is
the
Director
of
the
Center
for
Animals
and
Public
Policy,
Tufts
University
School
of
Veterinary
Medicine,
North
Grafton,
Massachusetts.
S
Y
N
0
P
S
I
S
Objective.
The
objective
of
this
study
was
to
better
characterize
the
prob-
lem
of
hoarding,
or
pathological
collecting,
of
animals.
Methods.
The
author
summarized
data
from
a
convenience
sample
of
54
case
reports
from
0
animal
control
agencies
and
humane
societies
across
the
country.
Results.
The
majority
(76%)
of
hoarders
were
female,
and
46%
were
60
years
of
age
or
older.
About
half
of
the
hoarders
lived
in
single-person
households.
The
animals
most
frequently
involved
were
cats,
dogs,
farm
ani-
mals,
and
birds.
The
median
number
of
animals
per
case
was
39,
but
there
were
four
cases
of
more
than
00
animals
in
a
household.
In
80%
of
cases
animals
were
reportedly
found
dead
or
in
poor
condition.
Prevalence
esti-
mates
extrapolated
from
these
data
range
from
700
to
2000
U.S.
cases
annually.
Conclusions.
Public
health
authorities
should
recognize
that
animal
hoard-
ing
may
be
a
sentinel
for
mental
health
problems
or
dementia,
which
merit
serious
assessment
and
prompt
intervention.
Improved
cooperation
between
humane
societies
and
public
health
authorities
could
facilitate
the
resolution
of
animal
hoarding
cases.
PUBLIC
HEALTH
REPORTS
*
JANUARY/FEBRUARY
1999
*
VOLUME
1
14
81
P
PAT
R
O
N
E
K
T
h
he
hoarding,
or
pathological
collecting,
of
animals
is
a
phenomenon
that
is
poorly
described
in
the
scientific
literature.
NJEDLINE
searches
using
the
terms
"hoarder,"
"collector"
(the
term
used
by
aniimal
conitrol
agencies
and
humane
societies),
and
animal"
revealed
only
one
paper,
published
in
1981.1
Perhaps
as
a
result
of
this
lack
of
scientific
attention,
there
h1as
been
no
formal
recognition
of
the
syndrome
and
no
systematic
reporting
of
cases.
Nevertheless,
anecdotal
reports
from
animal
control
agencies
and
humane
societies
suggest
that
animal
hoarding
occurs
sporadically
in
almost
every
community
in
the
United
States.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
phenomenon
transcends
the
ownership
of
multiple
pets
and
is
not
defined
by
the
number
of
animals
in
a
household.
Col-
lecting
a
large
number
of
animals
becomes
a
concern
when
the
number
overwhelms
the
ability
of
the
hoarder
to
provide
acceptable
care.
It
is
not
uncommon
for
hoarders
to
have
from
dozens
to
hundreds
of
animals,
often
both
living
and
dead,
confined
in
apartments,
trailers,
cars,
and
houses.
16
Sanitary
conditions
often
deteriorate
to
the
extent
that
dwellings
must
be
con-
demned
by
public
health
authorities
as
unfit
for
human
habitation.
Unfortunately,
because
of
ill
health,
conta-
gious
diseases,
and
the
large
numbers
involved,
euthaniasia
is
often
the
only
option
for
many
of
the
ani-
mals
rescued
from
such
situations.2-6
By
the
time
these
situations
have
deteriorated
to
the
point
they
cannot
be
ignored,
expenses
for
veterinary
services
and
housing
of
animals,
litigation,
and
clean-up
or
demolition
of
premises
can
run
into
the
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars.
Animal
hoarding
cases
tend
to
fall
within
multiple
jurisdictions
or
into
the
jurisdictional
cracks
between
state
and
local
government
agencies
and
departments
(for
example,
mental
health,
public
health,
aging,
child
welfare,
zoning,
building
safety,
animal
control,
sanita-
tion,
fish
and
wildlife),
so
it
is
the
rule
rather
than
the
exception
that
they
are
procedurally
cumbersome,
time
consuming,
and
costly
to
resolve.
Although
common
sense
suggests
that
the
accumulation
of
large
numbers
of
animals
in
human
living
spaces
can
have
important
public
health
implications,
including
placing
neighbor-
hoods
at
risk
due
to
unsanitary
living
conditions,
facili-
tating
the
spread
of
zoonotic
diseases,
and
endangering
the
health
of
vulnerable
household
members,
particu-
larly
children
or
dependent
elderly,
the
potential
for
these
consequences
in
animal
hoarding
cases
is
not
wvidely
appreciated
by
government
agencies.
As
a
result,
systematic
procedures
for
resolving
these
cases
are
lack-
ing,
as
are
effective
preventive
strategies.
Little
information
exists
to
guide
communities.
The
author
undertook
the
present
study
to
obtain
a
rough
estimate
of
the
prevalence
of
animal
hoarding,
to
char-
acterize
the
pattern-
of
interactions
among
agencies
within
the
public
health
and
social
service
systems
in
responding
to
these
cases,
and
to
stimulate
greater
awareness
of
this
under-recognized
problem.
METHODS
One
barrier
to
better
characterizing
the
problem
of
hoarding
of
animals
is
that
there
is
no
identifiable
sam-
pling
frame
from
which
to
obtain
a
random
sample
of
cases.
There
is
no
standard
definition
of
a
hoarding
case,
no
single
type
of
public
or
private
agency
responsi-
ble
for
investigating
these
cases,
and
no
standard
inves-
tigative
or
reporting
format.
For
this
study,
I
used
the
following
definition
of
a
hoarder:
someone
who
accu-
mulates
a
large
number
of
animals;
fails
to
provide
min-
imal
standards
of
nutrition,
sanitation,
and
veterinary
care;
and
fails
to
act
on
the
deteriorating
condition
of
the
animals
(including
disease,
starvation,
and
even
death)
or
the
environment
(severe
overcrowding,
extremely
unsanitary
conditions)
or
the
negative
effect
of
the
collection
on
their
oxv,n
health
and
well-being
and
on
that
of
other
household
members.
To
obtain
a
sufficient
number
and
geographically
varied
sample
of
cases,
I
identified
large,
wvell-estab-
lished
humane
societies
and
animal
control
agencies
likely
to
have
animal
cruelty
investigative
divisions
through
consultation
with
the
Humane
Society
of
the
United
States
(HSUS),
a
national
advocacy
organization
that
often
assists,
but
does
not
operate,
local
animal
shelters
and
humane
societies.
Five
regional
offices
of
the
HSUS
provided
a
short
list
of
approximately
25
organizations
believed
to
have
high
quality
investigative
divisions,
good
case
records,
and
a
sufficient
investiga-
tive
caseload.
I
attempted
to
contact
each
of
these
orga-
nization
by
telephone
during
April
1997
to
introduce
the
study
and
screen
them
for
their
willingness
and
abil-
ity
to
participate.
I
ascertained
whether
each
agency
had
an
investigative
division
in
1992-1996
that
had
investigated
animal
hoarder
cases
and whether
it
was
possible
to
retrieve
and
abstract
case
records.
Reasons
for
non-participation
included:
failure
to
respond
to
my
phone
calls;
lack
of
hoarder
cases;
lack
of
an
investiga-
tive
division;
inability
to
retrieve
case
records;
investiga-
tive
staff
employed
in
1992-1996
no
longer
with
the
agency;
or
staff
too
busy
to
complete
case
reports.
I'
U
B
LI
CI
1
EA
EL-I'll
RE
PO1
TS
*
J
A.'
U
ARY/
1:
E
BB
RU
A
RY
19,9)9
*
\VO(
1
U
N
E
II
4
Collecting
a
large
number
of
animals
becomes
a
concern
when
the
number
overwhelms
the
ability
of
the
hoarder
to
provide
acceptable
care.
Thirteen
of
the
agencies
met
the
criteria
for
partici-
pation
and
initially
expressed
interest
in
participating
in
the
study.
I
asked
each
to
retrospectively
identify
as
many
animal
hoarder
cases
as
possible
from
1992-1996
and
to
complete
a
pretested
standardized
case
report
form.
Ten
agencies
sent
in
a
total
of
54
completed
case
report
forms.
By
state,
the
number
of
cases
reported
were:
California
10,
Colorado
4,
Indiana
11,
Michigan
11,
Missouri
4,
Pennsylvania
6,
Texas
5,
Vermont
3.
The
officer
who
investigated
the
case
completed
the
case
report
form
for
50
of
the
54
cases.
No
personal
identi-
fiers
were
used
in
the
case
report
forms.
The
case
report
form
consisted
predominantly
of
multiple
choice
questions
that
addressed
the
nature
of
the
complaint
and
how
the
case
came
to
the
attention
of
the
investigating
agency;
the
number,
type
and
condi-
tion
of
the
animals
present;
the
location
of
the
animals
and
condition
of
the
premises;
whether
the
collector
acknowledged
the lack
of
sanitation;
the
extent
(none,
moderate,
extensive)
of
hoarding
of
a
variety
of
inani-
mate
objects;
the
genders
and
ages
of
household
mem-
bers;
the
nature
and
timing
of
interaction
with
govern-
ment
agencies;
and
the
final
resolution
of
the
case.
Respondents
were
asked
to
rank,
in
order
of
decreasing
frequency,
the
methods
by
which
the
hoarders
acquired
animals.
In
addition,
there
were
several
open-ended
questions
allowing
respondents
to
elaborate
on
details
or
provide
explanations
for
unique
features
of
the
case.
In
order
to
derive
a
rough
estimate
of
prevalence,
I
also
asked
each
agency
to
estimate
the
approximate
human
population
served
and,
as
a
measure
of
case
load,
the
total
number
of
animals
taken
in
each
year.
I
used
a
computerized
statistical
package,
SPSS
for
Win-
dows
version
7.5,
to
calculate
descriptive
statistics.
RESULTS
Agencies'
estimates
of
the
number
of
hoarding
cases
investigated
each
year
ranged
from
0-16.
The
mean
number
of
new
hoarding
cases
per
year
per
100,000
human
population
served
was
0.80
(median
0.25).
Based
on
a
U.S.
population
of
265
million,
this
extrapo-
lates
to
approximately
700
to
2000
cases
per
year
in
the
United
States.
The
mean
number
of
new
hoarding
cases
per
year
per
1000
animals
handled
was
0.27
(median
0.20).
Based
on
the
estimated
national
animal
shelter
population
of
6
million,7
this
extrapolates
to
approxi-
mately
1200
to
1600
cases
per
year
in
the
United
States,
within
the
range
estimated
based
on
the
human
population.
Thirty-two
(59.3%)
cases
involved
repeated
investi-
gations
of
the
same
individual,
and
the
median
number
of
visits
per
case
was
7.5.
Cases
came
to
the
attention
of
authorities
primarily
through
complaints
from
neighbors
(Table
1).
The
most
commonly
reported
reason
for
com-
plaints
was
unsanitary
conditions
(Table
2).
PUBLIC
HEALTH
REPORTS
*
JANUARY/FEBRUARY
1999
*
VOLUME
1
14
83
P
A
T
R
O
N
E
K
Demographics
of
hoarders
and
households.
The
majority
(76%)
of
the
54
hoarders
were
female.
Ages
were
often
approximate
and
were
not
recorded
in
three
cases;
46.3%
were
described
as
60
years
of
age
or
older;
37.0%
were
described
as
between
40
and
59
years
of
age;
and
1
1.
1%
as
younger
than
40
years
of
age.
Almost
three-quarters
(39,
or
72.2%)
were
reported
to
be
sin-
gle,
divorced,
or
widowed.
Just
over
half
(30,
or
55.6%)
were
described
as
living
in
single-person
households,
and
8
(14.8%)
were
reported
as
married
or
living
with
a
significant
other;
marital
status
was
unknown
for
7(13%).
There
was
a
mean
of
1.6
(median
1.0)
people
per
household.
Only
three
households
included
chil-
dren,
ranging
in
age
from
2
to
15
years.
In
the
open-
ended
comments
of
officers
completing
the
case
report
forms,
two
hoarders
were
described
as
having
depen-
dent
elderly
household
members.
Employment
infor-
mation
was
often
unknown
or
missing,
but
when
it
was
provided,
hoarders
were
typically
described
as
being
on
disability,
retired,
or
unemployed.
Most
(38,
or
71.7%)
of
the
residences
wvere
single
family
homes,
7
(13.2%)
wvere
house
trailers,
5
were
apartments
or
condomini-
ums,
and
3
were
other
types
of
housing.
As
described
by
the
officer
completing
the
case
report
forms,
28
households
(51.9%)
wvere
in
urban
areas,
15
(27.8%)
in
rural
areas,
and
11
(20.4%)
in
suburban
areas.
Animals.
Cats
were
involved
in
65%
of
cases,
dogs
in
60%,
farm
animals
in
1
1%,
and
birds
in
11%.
Officers
reported
a
median
of
39
animals
per
case,
but
there
were
four
cases
of
more
than
100
animals
in
a
house-
hold.
Nineteen
(35.2%)
cases
involved
a
single
species,
17
(31.5%)
involved
two
species,
12
(22.2%)
involved
three
species,
and
6
(1
1.
1
%)
involved
four
or
more
species.
According
to
those
completing
the
case
report-
ing
forms,
animals
were
acquired
primarily
through
unplanned
breeding
in
the
household
or
intentionally
seeking
or
acquiring
animals
from
outside
the
house-
hold
(for
example,
advertising
for
animals
in
newspa-
pers
or
picking
up
strays)
(Table
3).
Intentional
breed-
ing
wvas
relatively
uncommon
in
these
cases.
In
43
cases
(80%),
animals
were
reportedly
found
dead
or
in
poor
condition
(very
malnourished,
poor
haircoat,
with
obvious
disease
or
injury),
and
in
58%
of
these
cases,
the
hoarder
would
not
acknowledge
to
the
investigating
officer
that
a
problem
existed,
according
to
the
officers
completing
the
case
reports.
Twenty-three
(42.6%)
hoarders
reportedly
knew
all
of
their
animals
by
name,
whereas
18
(33.3%)
knew
fewv,
if
any,
by
name.
It
was
routine
for
officers
to
inquire
about
the
hoarder's
motivation
for
acquiring
so
many
animals.
Open-ended
questions
on
the
case
report
form
indicated
that
justifications
for
having
the
animals
typically
revolved
around
the
hoarder's
love
for
animals,
the
animals
as
surrogate
children,
feelings
that
no
one
else
wxould
care
for
the
animals,
and
fear
4UB
LP
I
C
H
EALTH
REPORTS
*
J
ANUARl/
E
B
RAUAR
RY
1
999
*
VOLU
M
E
I1
4
84
SCIENTIFIC
C
ONTRIBUTIONS
Animal
hoarding
cases
tend
to
fall
within
multiple
jurisdictions
or
into
the
jurisdictional
cracks
between
state
and
local
government
agencies
and
departments.
that
they
would
be
euthanized
if
taken
to
an
animal
shelter.
Household
characteristics.
According
to
case
reports,
the
living
areas
of
the
residences
were
inspected
in
49
cases
(90.7%).
In
38
cases
(77.6%
of
those
inspected),
the
premises
were
described
as
heav-
ily
cluttered
and
unsanitary,
and
in
34
(69.4%)
investi-
gators
reported
finding
accumulations
of
animal
feces
and
urine
in
the
human
living
areas
(Table
4).
Lack
of
a
working
bathroom
was
confirmed
in
16
(32.7%)
of
the
49
cases,
lack
of
working
cooking
facilities
in
10
(20.4%),
no
electricity
in
3
(6.1
%),
no
working
refrigera-
tor
in
10
(20.4%),
and
no
working
heat
in
7
(14.3%).
The
hoarder's
bed
was
reported
by
the
investigator
as
having
been
soiled
with
human
or
animal
urine
or
feces
or
both
in
13
(26.5%)
of
the
cases
in
which
the
premises
were
inspected.
Dead
animals
were
found
in
32
(59.3%)
of
resi-
dences.
Respondents
assigned
unsanitary
ratings
(rat-
ings
3-5)
to
38
cases
(70.4%).
(See
Table
4.)
The
clut-
ter
reportedly
inhibited
normal
movement
about
the
home
in
32
(84.2%)
of
the
38
cases,
inhibited
access
to
the
furniture
in
27
(73.0%),
to
the
kitchen
in
25
(71.4%),
and
to
the
bathroom
in
22
(62.9%),
and
inter-
fered
with
basic
human
hygiene
in
33
(89.2%).
The
hoarder
acknowledged
the
lack
of
sanitation
to
the
investigating
officer
in
10
(26.3%)
of
the
38
cases.
Extensive
accumulation
of
newspapers
was
noted
in
14
(25.9%),
of
trash
in
31
(38.9%),
of
pet
food
in
9
(16.7%),
and
of
human
food
items
in
5
(9.3%).
Other
items
noted
as
being
hoarded
included
holiday
decora-
tions,
paperback
books,
dolls
and
toys,
pornography,
plastic
milk
jugs,
medicines,
and
clothing.
Case
outcomes.
Respondents'
open-ended
comments
indicated
that
cases
were
often
protracted
and
difficult
to
resolve
and
that
even
after
removal
of
the
animals,
P'UBLIC
EIEALTII
REPIOR
TS
*
JANUARY/FEBRUARY
1999
*
VOLUME
1
14
85
P
PAT
R
O
N
E
K
resumption
of
hoarding
was
common.
In
some
cases,
the
hoarders
simply
disappeared
and
resurfaced
months
or
years
later
in
a
neighboring
jurisdiction,
either
wNith
the
same
or
new
animals.
One
woman
was
reported
as
purchasing
a
new
home
every
fewv
years
after
each
resi-
dence
became
uninhabitable.
In
the
open-ended
comments,
respondents
noted
that
in
14
cases
(26'S;),
the
hoarder
was
ultimately
placed
under
guardianship,
institutional
care,
or
some
form
of
superxised
living,
and
in
6
(11%)
the
hoarder's
premises
were
condemned
as
unfit
for
human
habitation.
Results
of
prosecution
included
9
(17%)
hoarders
being
prohibited
from
owning
animals
for
a
period,
court-ordered
ongoing
monitoring
for
10
hoarders
(18
%),
and
psychiatric
evaluation
of
13
of
the
hoarders
(24%),
while
3
individuals
received
short
jail
terms
(10
days,
90
days,
and
six
months).
One
hoarder
was
pro-
hibited
from
owning
more
than
three
pets
at
a
time
for
the
remainder
of
his/her
life.
According
to
the
respondents,
government
agencies
(public
health,
department
of
aging,
child
welfare,
men-
tal
health,
fire,
and
sanitation)
were
involved
or
con-
sulted
at
some
stage
in
36
(66.7%)
cases,
and
in
23
of
these,
some
action
or
intervention
was
eventually
taken.
Several
respondents
expressed
frustration
at
the
per-
ceived
inability
or
unwillingness
of
mental
health,
social
service,
and
public
health
authorities,
including
depart-
ments
of
aging,
to
intervene.
The
rationale
frequently
offered
by
these
agencies
was
that
hoarding
is
a
lifestyle
choice
and
not
a
public
health
or
mental
health
issue.
I
lowever,
in
one
case,
according
to
the
case
report
form,
a
woman
initially
evaluated
and
determined
to
be
men-
tally
competent
subsequently
died
as
a
result
of
a
wound
on
her
foot
that
became
infected
in
the
contami-
nated
environment
of
her
home.
D
I
S
C
U
S S
I
O
N
These
results
are
in
agreement
with
other
reports
that
animal
hoarders
tend
to
be
female,
older,
and
solitary,
to
concentrate
on
one
or
two
species
of
animal,
and
to
fail
to
acknowledge
the
extent
of
the
lack
of
sanitation
and
animal
suffering.1'6
In
the
present
study,
there
were
a
few
cases
in
which
minor
children
or
dependent
elderly
relatives
or
housemates
were
present,
which
is
of
partic-
ular
concern
given
the
extent
of
the
unsanitary
condi-
tions
and
lack
of
basic
necessities
(such
as
heat,
a
wvork-
ing
bathroom,
or
a
functional
kitchen)
in
many
of
the
residences.
Unlike
the
hoarding
of
inanimate
objects,
which
may
be
linked
with
a
variety
of
psychiatric
condi-
tions,811
animal
hoarding
has
not
yet
been
linked
with
any
specific
disorder.
This
may
be
an
additional
factor
that
precludes
or
delays
intervention
through
conven-
tional
mental
health
or
social
service
avenues,
leaving
cases
in
the
hands
of
animal
control
officials
or
humane
societies.
In
fairness,
the
response
of
mental
health
agencies
may
be
limited
by
laws
requiring
evidence
of
danger
to
the
hoarder
or
other
people
before
an
inter-
vention
that
infringes
on
civil
liberties
can
be
made.
Studies
to
document
the
extent
and
nature
of
psy-
chopathology
in
hoarders
could
provide
justification
for
more
rapid
action.
In
many
communities,
if
a
hoarder
resists
recom-
mendations
to
improve
conditions,
the
only
recourse
may
be
for
humane
societies
or
animal
control
depart-
ments
to
prosecute
under
animal
cruelty
laws.
Besides
being
inefficient
and
expensive,
this
moves
what
may
be
a
mental
or
public
health
issue
into
the
criminal
justice
arena,
which
can
impede
timely
recognition
of
impor-
tant
health
issues
and
delivery
of
needed
services.
It
does
not
help
that,
because
of
the
bizarre
nature
of
these
situations,
the
eccentricity
of
some
hoarders,
and
the
sheer
numbers
of
animals
involved,
the
cases
are
often
sensationalized
in
the
media.
Prosecution
offers
at
best
an
incomplete
solution
in
the
majority
of
these
cases,
and
it
is
no
surprise
that
anecdotal
reports
from
humane
societies
and
animal
control
agencies
indicate
resumption
of
the
behavior
is
common
in
those
cases
in
which
animals
are
removed
as
a
result
of
prosecution.
While
it
is
premature
to
attach
any
diagnostic
labels
to
animal
hoarders,
reports
that
at
least
a
quarter
of
the
hoarders
were
subsequently
institutionalized
or
placed
in
guardianship
or
in
a
supervised
living
situation
sug-
gest
that
the
behavior
should
at
least
be
considered
a
warning
sign
for
early
stages
of
dementia
or
for
as
yet
unspecified
psychiatric
conditions.
Because
of
the
lack
of
an
identifiable
sampling
frame
from
which
to
select
humane
societies
and
to
identify
those
with
investigative
divisions,
the
great
vari-
ability
in
the
training
and
experience
of
investigators,
the
lack
of
consistent
record
keeping
or
inability
to
retrieve
records,
and
difficulty
in
getting
agreement
from
overburdened
animal
shelters
to
participate,
a
case
series
format
using
a
convenience
sample
wvas
the
only
feasible
approach
to
begin
to
study
this
issue.
In
addi-
tion
to
the
inability
to
obtain
a
random
sample,
other
methodological
limitations
associated
with
studying
this
hard
to
reach
population
preclude
making
generaliza-
tions
from
this
case
series.
Animal
shelters
are
often
not
geared
to
data
collection,
and
it
xvas
not
possible
for
186U
13
L
C
H
E
A
LT
H
R
EP-
1'
(O)
RT1S
*
J
AN
UA
RY/
F
E
3
R
U
A
R
Y
I
9
9
*
\V
()
L
U
NI
E
4
86
S
C
I
E
NTI
FIC
C
ONTRI
B
UTI
O
N
S
Because
of
the
bizarre
nature
of
these
situations,
the
eccentricity
of
some
hoarders,
and
the
sheer
numbers
of
animals
involved,
the
cases
are
often
sensationalized
in
the
media.
every
shelter
to
retrieve
all
cases.
Also,
animal
shelters
vary
considerably
in
the
thoroughness
with
which
they
seek
out,
respond
to,
and
monitor
hoarder
cases.
There-
fore,
the
prevalence
estimate
of
0.25
to
0.80
reported
cases
per
100,000
people
is
rough.
It
is,
however,
simi-
lar
to
the
0.40
per
100,000
estimated
in
1981
in
New
York
City
using
case
records
from
1973-1979.
1
Because
of
the
secretive
nature
of
hoarders,
their
tendency
to
repeat
the
behavior,
and
the
lack
of
an
investigating
agency
in
some
communities,
the
true
prevalence
is
undoubtedly
much
higher.
These
limitations
have
been
a
barrier
to
the
study
and
recognition
of
the
problem
of
animal
hoarding
and
the
development
of
coordinated,
consistent,
and
effec-
tive
responses
by
municipal
agencies.
Some
communi-
ties
have
passed
laws
that
attempt
to
place
the
burden
for
paying
for
animal
care
and
rehabilitation
on
the
owner
when
animals
are
placed
under
protective
cus-
tody,
but
this
approach
fails
to
address
many
other
prob-
lems
related
to
human
health
and
well-being
and
is
moot
when
the
hoarder
is
destitute.
Others
have
attempted
to
prevent
these
situations
by
regulating
the
maximum
number
of
pets
owned
in
a
community.
A
broad
coalition
representing
the
pet
industry,
breeders,
and
some
animal
welfare
groups
typically
vigorously
resists
such
actions
on
the
grounds
that
they
unfairly
penalize
responsible
pet
owners.
The
present
report
will
hopefully
stimulate
discus-
sion
of
hoarding
behavior;
better
record
keeping
and
prospective
surveillance
by
humane
societies,
animal
control
agencies,
and
health
departments;
and
addi-
tional
studies
to
characterize
the
psychological
under-
pinnings
of
animal
hoarding.
More
timely
assessment
and
coordinated
intervention
would
result
in
less
trauma
for
the
hoarder,
would
be
less
expensive
for
municipalities,
could
prevent
substantial
animal
suffer-
ing,
and
could
provide
needed
services
for
the
humans
and
animals
involved.
Acknowledgments
Funding
for
this
study
was
provided
by
the
Edith
Goode
Trust
and
the
Massachusetts
Society
for
the
Prevention
of
Cruelty
to
Animals.
The
author
thanks
the
Chester
County
(PA)
SPCA,
the
Denver
Dumb
Friends
League,
El
Dorado
County
(CO)
Animal
Control,
Fort
Wayne
(IN)
Animal
Care
and
Control,
the
Houston
SPCA,
the
Humane
Society
of
Burlington
(VT),
the
Humane
Society
for
Larimer
County
(CO),
the
Humane
Society
of
Missouri,
the
Marin
(CA)
Humane
Society,
and
the
Michigan
Humane
Society
for
providing
case
reports.
References
1.
Worth
D,
Beck
AM.
Multiple
animal
ownership
in
New
York
City.
Tran
Stud
Coll
Physicians
Phila
1981;3:280-300.
2.
Handy
GL.
Handling
animal
collectors:
part
1:
interventions
that
work.
Shelter
Sense
1994;May/Jun:3-10.
3.
Lockwood
R,
Cassidy
B.
Killing
with
kindness.
Humane
Society
News
1
988;Summer:
1-5.
4.
Lockwood
R.
The
psychology
of animal
collectors.
Trends
1994;9:18-
21.
S.
Magitti
P.
Dog
and
cat
"collectors."
The
Animal's
Agenda
1
990;Jan/Feb:20-4.
6.
Mullen
S.
Animal
collectors
unlimited.
Advocate
1991
;Summer:18-2
1.
7.
Patronek
Gj,
Rowan
AN.
Determining
dog
and
cat
numbers
and
popu-
lation
dynamics.
Anthrozoos
1995;8:199-205.
8.
Greenburg
D.
Compulsive
hoarding.
Am
J
Psychother
1987;41:409-17.
9.
Rasmussen
SA,
Eisen
JL.
The
epidemiology
and
clinical
features
of
obsessive
compulsive
disorder.
Psychiatr
Clinic
North
Am
1992;
1
5:743-58.
10.
Frost
RO,
Hartl
TL,
Christian
R,
Williams
N.
The
value
of
possessions
in
compulsive
hoarding:
patterns
of
use
and
attachment.
Behav
Res
Ther
1995;33:897-902.
11.
Damecour
CL,
Charron
M.
Hoarding:
a
symptom
not
a
syndrome.
J
Clin
Pyschiatry
1998;
59:267-73.
U
PUBLIC
HEALTH
REPORTS
*
JANUARY/FEBRUARY
1999
*
VOLUME
I
14
87
